Reasoning? Not here.
Posted By: sm on 2009-02-06
In Reply to: I emailed both my senators........... sm - m
Aside from the fact that I find it distateful and unhelpful to rehearse pure policy disputes over presidential appointments, it is "terrible" reasoning to derive objections to Ogden's presumptive policies as Deputy AG from a brief he submitted on behalf of a client.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
So, by that reasoning....
how many Americans would be excluded from this club?
There's no reasoning with them when they
Reasoning........... sm
The man is not family-oriented in the instance that he argued FOR p*rnography and that schools and libraries should not be allowed to filter such filth from their users. I don't know about you, but I sure don't want my kid to be able to surf p*rn sites while at school or at the public library. I don't need any reason beyond that to oppose the appointment of David Ogden to DAG, and frankly I am shocked and disappointed in anyone who feels otherwise.
There is no reasoning with anyone who would
unbelievable...
By your own reasoning............... sm
MT companies should take their business back into the confines of their headquarters and stop employing people at home. Going by your barometer, our work would make our homes a business.
You can bet if that were to ever happen, this board would become a ghosttown and there would be a lot of unhappy MTs.
I don't follow your reasoning...because there are a lot of
gays you think God made them that way? Years ago, sex before marriage was unheard of, but so many people over the years have done it openly now it is accepted. The Bible speaks frankly against it. Same with adultery. The Bible speaks frankly against it. People still do it. And it is still wrong. The Bible speaks against homosexuality. People still do it, it is still wrong. More people kill and steal nowadays. Does that make it right? There are more serial killers today than 20 years ago. Does that make it okay? I believe you are rationalizing. Why would God call something an abomination and then make people that way? That is like saying people are thieves because God made them that way...people are killers because God made them that way...sorry, we will have to agree to disagree big time on that kind of reasoning.
with unsound reasoning
her reasoning was unsound as well - dear
Obama's reasoning for not
having his hand over his heart is that he said they were not saying the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag when that picture was taken. He said that the Star-Spangled Banner was being played or sung and states he was not raised to put his hand over his heart during the national anthem.....only when you pledge to the flag. That was his reason. I know his grandparents lived in Hawaii and he spent some years living in Indonesia living with his muslim step father, but even so........I've always been taught to put my hand over my heart during the national anthem as well as during the pledge. Maybe he truly wasn't taught to do that, but given all the experiene he claims to have in government, you would think he would hold the national anthem dear to his heart and put his hand over his heart like everyone else on that stage did during the Star-Spangled Banner. Take it as you will.
Don't confuse them with reasoning.
You've given REASONS why you're glad Bush is out and Obama is in.
They don't understand REASON and common sense. It's something scary and foreign to them. So they call it cult worship. This very thinking is something that will get Obama killed, and when it does, each of these morons on this board will have blood on their hands.
Nobody can reason with these people. I'm personally tired of visiting this board and being brought down by all the UN-American posts I see.
I'm interested in having a better life. All visiting this board does is show me enormous ignorance concentrated into one little site. There are other sites where people make sense.
This site is starting to become too toxic and hazardous to my health. I'll check back in a month or so, and if no common decency has returned, then there's no point in my coming back here any more.
Here is my stance and my reasoning
for what I said above. Government shouldn't have 80% of AIG. They should have let AIG fall on its face. They shouldn't have given them money in the first place.
Here is a little blurp I've copied: I will provide the link below.
On March 5, New York Fed officials forwarded to the Treasury Department a summary of AIG’s bonus and retention payment issues, including details of the retention program for officials of the Financial Products. This information included that $165 million in payments were expected that very month, as well as the fact that the contracts were in place in the first quarter of 2008, and so not covered by the limitations in the stimulus bill as articulated by an amendment to the stimulus bill offered by Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn.
As ABC News' Capitol Hill Correspondent Jonathan Karl reported, in February, the Senate unanimously approved an amendment restricting bonuses over $100,000 at any company receiving federal bailout funds, but during the closed-door House and Senate negotiations the provision was stripped out and replaced with a measure by Dodd exempting bonuses agreed to prior to the passage of the stimulus bill on February 11, 2009.
You can read the whole article at this link: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/03/obama-adminis-1.html
So this basically shows that these bonuses were pushed through by Dodd and so the government had its hand in giving out these bonuses and now they are going to turn around and take that away. It is a contract. I understand that AIG got butt loads of money from the government.....which was wrong in the first place.....but don't you see how scary it is for our government to have this kind of control and power. To give and take away at the drop of a hat. To null and void a contract that someone in government (Dodd) pushed through to make happen and then they turn around and want to tax it to death or just take it from them.
Why in the he!! did Dodd get this slipped in there in the first place? that is the real question. This wouldn't even be an issue. Dodd slips this in because he received the highest amount of money from AIG. So of course he wanted to pay back the hand that fed him...so to speak. And guess who had the second highest amount of contributions from AIG.....Barrack Obama..... So Dodd slips this through and allows a loophole for the AIG execs to get their big ars bonuses and now that it has gone public and people are furious......now government wants to take control and make them give the money back. Isn't it the governments fault in the first place....first for bailing them out and then for letting this loophole slip by to pay back AIG for contributions to campaigns.
This is why our government sucks. They don't care about Americans. All they care about is getting money back to the groups, etc. who contributed money to their campaign. That is why we can't get away from wasteful spending and earmarks.
Sp be it, but your line of reasoning is skewed
What if a sex offender was running loose in your neighborhood. What if he had raped a child 10 years ago, went to jail with a slap on the wrist (like what happens these days), and got out in ten years. He shows up in your neighborhood, and you see him out on his porch everyday when the school bus arrives and leaves. Not only is he leering at the school kids he's making outrageous comments on a daily basis. Would you say, *Oh, he went to prison. He did his time. Hopefully, he's rehabilited. Yes, he's a little strange and outrageous, but so far, as far as we know, he's not touched a kid again so we need to leave him alone.*
Would you trust this guy? Especially if you then found out he has a *rape room* in his house? What if his sons were running around the neighborhood reeking havoc and doing the same things but in a more merciless way and you found out they were going to inherit his house when he died?
Well, this correlates very well with Saddam. Almost too closely in fact. Like many of you say here on a daily basis, the world is our neighborhood, and in many neighborhoods there are bullies, and they don't quit being bullies until you take them out. It's just the way the world works.
Here's my reasoning on stem cell research
It's not been made illegal, it's simply not funded with federal money, i.e. taxpayers money. The pendulum has swung so far to the other side. There are lots of people who have serious objections to abortions and also stem cell research, because of their objection to using live embryos. People who want abortions have them paid for by people who don't believe in them. That's unfair. So, let the private market do the stem cell research and leave the taxpayers out of it. If you feel very strongly about it, donate your own money to those doing it in the private market.
Gotta love the reasoning of these pirates
'Killing our boys was aggression.' I guess you're just supposed to pay them the money and let them keep pirating. Nobody was ever supposed to fight back.
And, as they have threatened to 'deal harshly' with any US or French sailors they capture in the future, is there any reason why now we should not simply hunt down and blast each and every one of them out of the water? None that I can think of. I think they just declared war on us.
You are so right, question everything, it is the blind condemnation and deafness to reasoning that i
nm
you aren't reasoning out issues, you are being downright rude, crude, and nasty. nm
nm
|
